|
|
|
|
|
|
by sdenton4
2278 days ago
|
|
|
/You also have a misreading of what Ioannidis is trying to push for. He isn't advocating against taking action before good evidence comes out. Rather, he is highlighting that our current lack of good evidence about the epidemic is necessitating a greater reaction than may actually be necessary if we had better evidence./ This is kinda the core problem, though: We don't have access to the full evidence (yet) and things already look somewhere between very very bad and mildly catastrophic. (I'll reserve full catastrophe for Giant Asteroid.) If you don't plan for the 'catastrophic' case and it's on the table, you look pretty bad if the error tends in that direction. By the time you KNOW you're in the catastrophic case, it's too late to deal with it. I've seen the Ioniaddis pieces showing up in a couple places, and he really comes off as a bit of a crank, more concerned about his Stanford-supported stock portfolio than considering the Actually Available evidence. I don't give a fsck about the initial wrong reports in China... Italy's got overflowing hospitals and a very exponential-looking death curve right now. Not enough testing means we're getting better numbers, leading to a sharp spike... but the numbers are still reflecting mostly the worst cases, coz that's who tests are available to. And the numbers of deaths and very bad cases are climbing very, very fast. Here's a model you can tweak, with plots of available data and estimates of available hospital beds, etc... Just looking at the death curves (can't hide a body, amirite) the 'Fast/North' scenario looks like it fits well for the US. Moderate-to-no mitigation is then modeled at O(3MM) deaths, and strong mitigation drops to O(1MM). So, the error bars that we're playing with are measured in millions of lives. https://neherlab.org/covid19/ |
|
|